I think most activists could be described that way, but Greenpeace has always been that way.

I would agree with him if I didn't know that before he left Greenpeace it was more radical than it is now and also if I didn't know he founded a PR company that basically works for the sleaziest most environmentally destructive companies out there. He didn't leave Greenpeace because it became more radical, he just lost his idealism and gained a taste for making a lot of money.

Not very surprising when you remember that he co-founded Greenpeace when he was a graduate student. It's pretty normal for people to be radical in college and then become money oriented later in life. He will likely be riding a Hoveround waiving a Gadsden flag in another decade.

Of course, it's Breitbart, so TFA is written more for people who aren't quite bright enough to grasp the difference between a scientist and a Greenpeace member.

Geotpf:Anybody want to comment on his scientific assertions, which are basically saying that global warming is actually a good thing because humans and the crops we eat do better in warmer climates?

Uh, yeah, um, well, ah, it's, not to put too fine a point on it, but it's a steaming pile of astroturfed bullshiat.

Truth be told, if we're going to get extra picky, ALL of the prognostications about global warming are just that--prognostications. NOBODY actually KNOWS what is going to happen or what the actual outcome ABSOLUTELY IS GOING TO BE. That being said, the models that have the weight of field consensus behind them beg to differ quite a great deal from what this fellow is claiming. Of course, we also have to admit that the best physics we currently have cannot conclusively PROVE that it's not all being done by invisible pixies...

Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.

Uncle Tractor:Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.

olddinosaur:Geotpf: Anybody want to comment on his scientific assertions, which are basically saying that global warming is actually a good thing because humans and the crops we eat do better in warmer climates?

The basic science is this: Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen, so if it is hotter, more plants will grow.

In addition, there are 7 billion people in the world and many are quite hungry, so if the growing season is extended and more farmland is available, so much the better.

More heat evaporates more ocean water so there would be more rain, not less.

Oh, and the part about it failing to meet the most basic principles of the scientific method is also correct, regardless of the outcome.

olddinosaur:Geotpf: Anybody want to comment on his scientific assertions, which are basically saying that global warming is actually a good thing because humans and the crops we eat do better in warmer climates?

The basic science is this: Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen, so if it is hotter, more plants will grow.

In addition, there are 7 billion people in the world and many are quite hungry, so if the growing season is extended and more farmland is available, so much the better.

More heat evaporates more ocean water so there would be more rain, not less.

That 8-year-old-level of scientific understanding would be swell if the planet were a uniform mass. Unfortunately, we currently grow just barely enough food on the arable land (and catch a decreasing amount of fish) to support 7 billion people. A hotter climate shifts the rainfall to different places, so some (possibly much) of that arable land will no longer be able to grow as much food, and other areas that get the right amount of rain and sunshine after the climate change are less fertile, have the wrong topography, are inaccessible, etc.

Worst-case end result is less food than mouths, widescale starvation, war, economic collapse. It's happened any number of times in the past, just not yet on a global scale.

There's plenty to argue with scientifically in what he's said.1) Life? Sure, because archaea have been present since ~3.8bn years ago, and oceans and other sinks only saturated with oxygen starting ~0.85bn years ago. Furthermore, solar output was lower then (the faint young sun paradox); recent research has shown that historical *temperatures* were fairly well controlled (Hospitable Archean Climates Simulated by a General Circulation Model; Wolf et al, 2013).2) Yes, climate in the past has been different, and occasionally warmer. However, in those times, the biosphere was also much, much different and based on the records we do have, the changes that happened (other than at mass extinction events) happened relatively slowly, versus the sudden step change (in geological terms) we are about to induce.3) See 1.4) We depend on a biosphere which is mostly not composed of tropical animals.5) Plants are limited by available nutrients and water in most conditions, and photosynthesis in C3 plants (~95% of the biosphere) can't take place in high temperatures. The result of this is that extra CO2 doesn't help outside of a greenhouse where those needs are explicitly met.6) See 5.7) Sure, it may be possible. However, the soils in boreal forests tend to be quite acidic, which most plants aren't too keen on. Some soils are amenable to agriculture; others require a lot of work.8) See 5.9) Recent research on that shows that much of the warming has been happening in the Arctic, and observation has been hampered by sparse station networks. If I recall correctly, most of the additional heat content has been going into the deep ocean.

bronaugh:However, the soils in boreal forests tend to be quite acidic, which most plants aren't too keen on. Some soils are amenable to agriculture; others require a lot of work.

Nah. Soil acidity is almost totally dependent on the underlying substrate. Alberta, for instance, even though it has a lot of boreal forest, has a lot of alkaline soil areas. No, falling evergreen needles don't change soil acidity, despite what anyone tells you.

Uncle Tractor:Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.

Uncle Tractor:Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.

I get more concerned at their opposition to GM vitamin A-enhanced foods

Egalitarian:Uncle Tractor: Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.